Master Index of Archived Threads


Negotiations With Manuel

metirish Oct 03 2008 07:17 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 03 2008 07:22 AM

David Lennon today saying that the Mets are " digging their heels in" with Manuel regarding a contract. Mets offered a two year deal worth about $1.5 million and Lennon says they do no want to offer much more than that..... Some points from the article. As always, there are financial concerns as well. The Mets are paying Randolph $2.5 million not to manage next year, and that cycle has to be broken at some point. When Randolph was hired for the 2005 season, Art Howe still had two years and $4.7 million left on his contract. Lennon speculates that Bobby V could be one candidate to come back if Manuel doesn't stay. But if negotiations do fall through, one of the names that could surface again is Bobby Valentine. The club's chilly relationship with Valentine has thawed during the past year, and the Mets' job is one of the few that might prompt him to leave Japan. Having him return to open Citi Field next April would be like the franchise welcoming home a prodigal son. Other names Lennon mentions.... ] BOBBY VALENTINE, manager, Chiba Lotte Marines. Brilliant field manager with New York experience. Has good relationship with GM Omar Minaya and seems to have patched things up with the Wilpons after his firing in 2002. RUDY JARAMILLO, hitting coach, Rangers. Was interviewed for Mets' vacancy before Willie Randolph got the job in 2005. Considered one of the best hitting coaches in the game. That couldn't hurt, given the Mets' offensive woes down the stretch. LARRY BOWA, third-base coach, Dodgers. Fiery attitude might be wake-up call the Mets need if this core stays together. Worked alongside Joe Torre in the Bronx and now in L.A., but may want to come back east. DAVEY JOHNSON, manager, Team USA. Estranged former Mets manager wore a Mets hat during this past July's Futures Game, but he has kept his distance from organization. Seems reluctant to return to majors. MANNY ACTA, manager, Nationals. With the D.C. franchise in total disarray, maybe the Nats would let him out of his contract. His coaching staff already was fired on the final day of the regular season. Close ties with Minaya and assistant GM Tony Bernazard. Of course one never knows what is going on in contract negotiations , I would not be surprised if it was announced that Manuel signed today or if it went of for a few weeks , although that will lead to more speculation and names being thrown about.

AG/DC Oct 03 2008 07:21 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 03 2008 07:26 AM

1) Sounds like Manuel is undervalued relative to his predecessors. 2) It's not Manuel's fault that they're still paying other guys, and, if they want to break the cycle, why break it over his head? 3) I realize Lennon is throwing me red meat with Valentine speculation, but is there any doubt that Bobby Valentine would cost 3-4 times per annum more than what Manuel costs, over a minimum of three years?

metirish Oct 03 2008 07:23 AM

Good points edgy , and last I read Bobby V was making $4 million per year over in Japan , plus he practically runs the whole show .

soupcan Oct 03 2008 07:26 AM Re: Negotiations With Manuel

metirish wrote: Lennon speculates that Bobby V could be one candidate to come back if Manuel doesn't stay. Don't tease me.

Gwreck Oct 03 2008 07:46 AM

I can't remember where I read it, but my recollection is similar to that of metirish, that Valentine is making boatloads in Japan, and that a paycut to return to the US wasn't in the cards.

old original jb Oct 03 2008 08:03 AM All you need to know about pay and performance

How profoundly Fucked is it that the Mets will pay Willie Randolph more than twice as much NOT to manage badly as they are willing to pay Jerry Manuel to manage pretty well? Come to think of it, I'd probably do an even worse job than Willie. I'm think going to call up the Wilpons and tell them that if I don't get a couple million dollars by next Wednesday, I'M going to start managing the Mets.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 03 2008 08:09 AM

The great thing is, Jerry is representing himself in negotiationsm, and I'm all for him getting all he can get. But, you know, he's just a manager. Bobby Vee in the right spot iprolly deserves more $$ cuz he's kind of a promotional tool, figurehead, spokesman, attraction in a way few others are. I mean, the Mets with the new park may not need a gate attraction, but never say never.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 03 2008 08:18 AM Re: All you need to know about pay and performance

old original jb wrote: How profoundly Fucked is it that the Mets will pay Willie Randolph more than twice as much NOT to manage badly as they are willing to pay Jerry Manuel to manage pretty well? Paying Willie Randolph not to manage the Mets might be the best money the franchise ever spent in recent times. If I were Fred Wilpon, I'd pay the Phillies triple to have Willie manage the Philllies next season. Phillie Willie would just about ensure a 2009 division title for the Mets. After they pay Willie not to manage, the next thing the Mets should do is to pay Castillo not to play. Castillo's guaranteed salary is a sunk cost. I agree with AG's line about it not being Manuel's fault that Willie had guaranteed money coming to him. That's the first thing I thought of when I read the article up top. What if the Mets had foolishly guaranteed Willie $10M? Or $15M. Would Manuel have to manage for free? Or would Willie have remained --another sunk cost sinking the Mets-- and us Mets fans would have to endure more years of bottom of the batting order hitters batting second and asked to make intentional outs every single time Reyes leads off an inning by getting on base? I thought we had gotten rid of this dreadful manager but he's still haunting, still undermining this team.

AG/DC Oct 03 2008 08:30 AM

The way to not continue paying managers after you fire them, it seems obvious, is to stop making poor choices in hiring.

metirish Oct 03 2008 08:36 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The great thing is, Jerry is representing himself in negotiationsm, and I'm all for him getting all he can get. I didn't know he was representing himself , I don't know if that's the smartest thing .

AG/DC Oct 03 2008 08:42 AM

It's certainly going to drag things out, what with the pauses. I think good managers make a difference, sometimes large --- it's just that I can't say how. I think they make differences in different ways, it's hard to measure, and so we don't want to believe it. Kind of like, I don't know, a politician. Can you not have two senators in the same party, with the same voting record and the same lack of indictments, and one be far more effective?

metsmarathon Oct 03 2008 09:11 AM

this isn't a direct criticism of manuel, but moreso a criticism of major league managers in general, but one thing that manuel did that had me utterly infuriated at times, is go to his bullpen for lefty righty matchups. why does this bother me? well, listen, i understand that some pitchers are far more effective against lefties than they are against righties, and that others are far more effective against righties than they are against lefties. but i also know that some days, a pitcher just doesn't have it, and there's really no way of knowing this for certain until he faces real live batters. (if you could predict it in the bullpen, you would, and not bring in guys who would turn out to be ineffective, right!) this is true of starters and relievers alike. and i believe that the more inconsistent, the more struggling your given pitcher is, the greater variability you'll get between appearances. i do not believe this variability to exist on such a great scale between batters as it does between appearances, and likely also between innings. while i don't have stats to back this notion up, i do have anecdotal recollections which seem to reinforce my notion. so my complaint is, essentially, that when you bring in a lefty, and he does really well against the other team's left-handed batter(s), with good movement and control, you let him pitch to the righty on deck. because while the righty you have in your pen has good numbers agasinst him in general, you just don't know what you're going to get this time around. so if you've already got a guy in the game who hasn't thrown too many pitches, and is throwing well and effectively, you leave him in the game instead of rolling the dice one more time. all managers do it, and it frustrates me when you pull out an effective pitcher and gamble that the next guy will be just as effective. also, if your lefties never face right handed batters, they'll never be able to get them out when your good righty is unavailable. this is about the only thing that jerry does that bugs me, that i can recall. and all managers do it. and i'm not sure too many would do what i say, nowadays. so its fairly difficult to fault him for it. and certainly this is not a reason for why i think the mets would be better off without him. i'd love to see bobby vee back, but i really doubt it'll ever happen.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 03 2008 09:17 AM

Jerry did make a lot of pitching changes, especially in the last few weeks. I too would be more inclined to stick with a guy who's getting outs, regardless of handedness. But Jerry was dancing through raindrops with his bullpen in September. I think he might have been better served by making fewer moves, but he opted to go the other way. It didn't work, but I do understand why he felt he had to keep his hands in there.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 03 2008 09:23 AM

metsmarathon wrote: this isn't a direct criticism of manuel, but moreso a criticism of major league managers in general, but one thing that manuel did that had me utterly infuriated at times, is go to his bullpen for lefty righty matchups. why does this bother me? I agree and also would've preferred longer outings (by better relievers) just like you. Here, I cut Manuel a lot of slack because the Mets were loaded with too many LOOGYS and ROOGYS. The Mets sorely lacked a Skip Lockwood or Bob Apodaca type -- a reliever that could reliably pitch to both left and right side hitters.

metsmarathon Oct 03 2008 09:27 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Jerry did make a lot of pitching changes, especially in the last few weeks. I too would be more inclined to stick with a guy who's getting outs, regardless of handedness. But Jerry was dancing through raindrops with his bullpen in September. I think he might have been better served by making fewer moves, but he opted to go the other way. It didn't work, but I do understand why he felt he had to keep his hands in there. absolutely. he played it by the book, and would've gotten killed if he didn't and still yielded the same results.

metirish Oct 03 2008 09:29 AM

Manuel mentioned that Schoeniweiss was his best crossover guy , still in the last weeks he was like a mad man changing pitchers.

AG/DC Oct 03 2008 09:35 AM

the bulloen was failing left and right and he didn't have the time to improve them. Strictly playing matchups was the last card he played, not the first. The unkindest blow came when he allowed Schoeneweis to hang in there against one righty too many.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 03 2008 09:47 AM

Losing Wags was a crushing blow. His innings were naturally replaced by lesser pitchers, occasionally by whoever was the Mets worst reliever - a reliever that wouldn't of even been on the roster but for Billy's season (career?) ending injury.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 03 2008 09:58 AM

I also like that Jerry tried an old trick: getting more innings from his starters. Before Wagner got hurt, the Mets had only had one complete game, from Santana on July 27. After Billy's final game on August 2, the Mets had four more: Two from Pelfrey (August 20 and 25) and two from Santana (August 17 and September 27.) I like that he decided to stretch his starters where he could. I hope to see more of that from him.

Fman99 Oct 03 2008 10:26 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="metsmarathon"]this isn't a direct criticism of manuel, but moreso a criticism of major league managers in general, but one thing that manuel did that had me utterly infuriated at times, is go to his bullpen for lefty righty matchups. why does this bother me? I agree and also would've preferred longer outings (by better relievers) just like you. Here, I cut Manuel a lot of slack because the Mets were loaded with too many LOOGYS and ROOGYS. The Mets sorely lacked a Skip Lockwood or Bob Apodaca type -- a reliever that could reliably pitch to both left and right side hitters. We had one, actually. Except we left him in 2006. I'm looking at you, Aaron.

seawolf17 Oct 03 2008 10:32 AM

AG/DC wrote: The unkindest blow came when he allowed Schoeneweis to hang in there against one righty too many. He put in Show on Sunday to face Jacobs, a lefty. They countered with Helms. The question was Schoeneweis/Helms or Heilman (Ayala?)/Jacobs; he wasn't going to get the matchup he wanted. There was no middle ground; in retrospect, he just picked the wrong one. Once they announced Helms, Show had to pitch to him, because he was fresh in the game.

AG/DC Oct 03 2008 10:48 AM

Show gotta go with the pitch-around then.

Frayed Knot Oct 03 2008 10:48 AM

]Can you not have two senators in the same party, with the same voting record and the same lack of indictments, and one be far more effective? Well sure, especially when you have Senator Jeter casting all his votes in the clutch.

Frayed Knot Oct 03 2008 11:02 AM

Couple things about the pen: - Met starters actually covered a learger pct of innings than the average team and I don't believe it changed that much between managers, although I don't have specific data on that. Lack of innings for the starters wasn't the real problem unless one wants to take them to task for not providing the super-duper # of IPs that would be needed in order to save us from the rotten pen. - The Met pen had by far the largest gaps in their pitching splits for throwing to their opposites (LHPs vs R and RHP v L) meaning that it was almost necessary to do the 6 reliever conga line each night. Then, tacked on to that, came the lack of Wagner combined with the ineffectiveness of Sanchez & Heilman which made the mgr depend even more on the guys with the built-in half-lives. As someone mentioned, do that often enough and you'll eventually hit upon someone who simply sucked that night but, in this case, the horrid splits might make inaction even more likely to make the predictable occur. In the final game I saw the Schoeneweis/Helms matchup and just asked him to get through just this one right-hander!! ... and he couldn't even do that.

seawolf17 Oct 03 2008 11:11 AM

DO IT, OMAR. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3623945

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 03 2008 11:12 AM

I think the offense's habit of encountering difficulty scoring in the late innings -- compounded by what had to be the feeblest bench of any contender -- was little help. I know its better than the alternative of not handing them a lead at all, but seemed like they almost always had a lead to protect and hardly ever had much margin for error.

AG/DC Oct 03 2008 11:17 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 05 2008 09:27 PM

They gobbled up some wide margins there.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 03 2008 11:19 AM

seawolf17 wrote: DO IT, OMAR. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3623945 ]"I am working for a team that needs me and wants me as their man," Valentine replied. "I love it here, but I am an American and love great challenges. I was a in a Met uniform in the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000, and would love to be there in the next decade."

seawolf17 Oct 03 2008 11:19 AM

Sign him to a ten-year contract and name a rotunda after him.

themetfairy Oct 03 2008 11:24 AM

I want Bobby back!

Farmer Ted Oct 03 2008 11:48 AM

Bobby V. Inventor of the wrap sandwich.

seawolf17 Oct 03 2008 12:42 PM

Are you guys talking about Bobby Valentine? I know Bobby Valentine!

HahnSolo Oct 03 2008 12:46 PM

="seawolf17"]Sign him to a ten-year contract and name a rotunda after him. Well, he was a Dodger.

Iubitul Oct 03 2008 12:51 PM

I would bring Bobby back in a NY minute. that being said, I doubt it will happen. They are playing hardball with Manuel's salary because of what they are paying Willie not to manage. What makes us think they would be willing to pay Bobby what it takes to bring him back?

themetfairy Oct 03 2008 12:55 PM

Iubitul wrote: I would bring Bobby back in a NY minute. that being said, I doubt it will happen. They are playing hardball with Manuel's salary because of what they are paying Willie not to manage. What makes us think they would be willing to pay Bobby what it takes to bring him back? Only being half facetious here - because Bobby would put butts in the seats (not a problem next year, but if The Powers That Be have any sense they'll see that it could be an issue down the line) and bring all sorts of media attention, etc. Or, cynically, because Bobby could help them to sell the "brand."

metirish Oct 03 2008 01:25 PM

If I'm negotiating with Manuel and I read what Valentine said then I would be foolish not to call the man. I puked my guts out in the bathroom at Bobby's old restaurant , had a hard nights drinking on a Saturday , went to his place on the Sunday , had some wings and got sick. Were the bathrooms in the restaurant , I seem to remember going into the motel to get sick.

themetfairy Oct 03 2008 01:27 PM

I seem to remember the bathrooms being in the hotel as opposed to being in the restaurant.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 03 2008 04:02 PM

="HahnSolo"] ="seawolf17"]Sign him to a ten-year contract and name a rotunda after him. Well, he was a Dodger. Bad ass!

OlerudOwned Oct 03 2008 04:05 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3624489 That's that.

themetfairy Oct 03 2008 04:16 PM

<pout>

Iubitul Oct 03 2008 04:45 PM

Only the Mets could do this. Two days ago, I would have been happy with them bringing back Jerry. Now Bobby V. gets dangled in front of me like a carrot, and I'm disappointed...

SteveJRogers Oct 03 2008 05:17 PM

themetfairy wrote: I seem to remember the bathrooms being in the hotel as opposed to being in the restaurant. I can verify that from being in that hotel over the summer.

Kong76 Oct 03 2008 05:35 PM

Iub: Only the Mets could do this <<< Only ESPN could do this. Or The Post. Or Newsday. Mets didn't do anything.

seawolf17 Oct 03 2008 05:45 PM

(sigh)

Benjamin Grimm Oct 03 2008 05:50 PM

I don't think Bobby was ever going to happen. If Jerry's back for two years, I'm happy.

Iubitul Oct 03 2008 06:48 PM

="KC"]Iub: Only the Mets could do this <<< Only ESPN could do this. Or The Post. Or Newsday. Mets didn't do anything. 'tis true.

Rockin' Doc Oct 04 2008 06:46 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't think Bobby was ever going to happen. If Jerry's back for two years, I'm happy. I feel the same way. Manuel did a good job during his time with the Mets. It would be nice to see what he could do with a team with a decent bullpen to call on.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 04 2008 07:05 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't think Bobby was ever going to happen. If Jerry's back for two years, I'm happy. Same here. I guess we shouldn't underestimate the motivation the specter gave to Jerry however.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 04 2008 12:45 PM

I like Manuel. As for the Valentine discussion in the papers, always take into account that the beat writers must file something on slow days.

metirish Oct 04 2008 06:48 PM

I'm glad Jerry is back , never really expected much form the Bobby V talk. Some things from Manuel today. ] Jerry Manuel was in a joking mood. "I was trying to get 15 years on my deal," the New York Mets manager said Saturday. "They cut it down." Manuel's "interim" tag was removed Friday night when the Mets gave him a two-year contract that guarantees him more than $2 million and includes a club option for 2011. Now he must figure out why the team collapsed in each of the last two Septembers and find a solution that gets New York back in the postseason. "We have to grow from every time that we get as close as we get and don't make it, and we have to review and kind of marinate on why we don't make it," Manuel said during a conference call. "My job is to make sure that each guy is clear with his responsibilities for not being there, for us not making it," he said. "I have to look at myself first, and we have to kind of look at the team and see where we failed, why we failed and talk about it as a group and grow from it." On his first full day as the Mets' long-term manager, Manuel forcefully attacked the SABR-type mathematical analysis some have fixated on in recent years. "You get so many statistical people together, they put so many stats on paper, and they say, well, if you do this and you score this many runs, you do that many times, you'll be in the playoffs," he said. "That's not really how it works, and that's what we have to get away from. And that's going to have to be a different mind-set of the team in going forward. We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people. We have to win because we have baseball players that know and can understand the game." Manuel took over when Willie Randolph was fired on June 17 with New York at 34-35 then. He loosened Randolph's stricter clubhouse atmosphere, and the Mets rebounded to take a 3 1/2-game NL East lead in September. But they lost 10 of their final 17 games and were eliminated from postseason contention on the final day of the season for the second straight year. In 2007, the Mets wasted a seven-game division lead with 17 to play. For Manuel, the key is teaching his players to execute in the key situations. "We have to put a value on say, moving a runner over. We have to put a value on getting a bases on balls. We have to put a value on infield back, (getting a) ground ball that's sufficient to score a run," he said. "Those types of things have to be accented in order for us, in my opinion, to kind of get to the next level." The AL Manager of the Year in 2000 with the Chicago White Sox, Manuel inherited a core group anchored offensively by David Wright, Jose Reyes and Carlos Delgado, and a starting rotation headed by Johan Santana. While the big offensive trio had respectable statistics or better, they didn't stop the September slide. Manuel said spring training will be a time of teaching, for him to give "clarity" to players on his methods. Execution in the clutch is his emphasis, and the Mets likely will bring in new offensive players, likely in the corner outfield spots. "You don't see a lot of guys that have statistical numbers play well in these championship series," Manuel said. "What you see is usually the little second baseman or somebody like that carries off the MVP trophy that nobody expected him to do. That's because he's comfortable in playing that form of baseball, so therefore when the stage comes, it's not a struggle for him." The other key is to address the flammable bullpen, which flopped when Billy Wagner missed the final two months of the season due to an elbow injury that will sideline the closer for most if not all of 2009. Mets relievers were 2-for-6 on save chances in the final 17 games, combining for a 6.23 ERA and a .335 opponents' batting average. "I couldn't tell you how much is salvageable and how much is not. I do know that I've been without a couple pair of shoes," Manuel said. "Our job is to get people back in their roles that we think that we signed them up for, and then evaluate from that point of view. But to put them in roles that they're not accustomed to is sometimes an unfair evaluation."

SteveJRogers Oct 04 2008 06:50 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I like Manuel. As for the Valentine discussion in the papers, always take into account that the beat writers must file something on slow days. Yes, and sadly morons who don't follow the news carefully enough get sucked into believing that there is a kernel of truth behind every story out there. A co-worker of mine, who isn't a baseball fan but loves to bust chops, who read it on ESPN.com asked me if I was excited about Bobby V coming back, to which I had to explain that it was just Bobby shamelessly putting his name out there. He STILL thought there was some "fire" to the "smoke."

Benjamin Grimm Oct 09 2008 09:11 AM

Has there been any word on the coaching staff? I'm guessing there will be at least a few changes. I'm most curious about whether Dan Warthen and Howard Johnson will return. Oberkfell too, I guess.

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 09:16 AM

I love Guy Conti like my white Daddy, but two stretch runs in a row where his bullpen simply hasn't shown up for him, under two different pitching coaches --- eventually that's got to lead to a knock on his door, no?

metirish Oct 09 2008 09:24 AM

I read the other day that Conti is a certain goner once the Mets cut ties with Pedro. I guess one question is how much say Manuel has in the coaches that stay or don't stay. Clint Hurdle just fired three of his coaching staff , Bob Apodaca survived as did the first base coach. ] "It was a painful day for me, but obviously not as painful as it was for them," Hurdle told The Denver Post today. "I did this because I thought it would make us better next season. It's tough because you have to separate personal relationships."

soupcan Oct 09 2008 09:30 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm most curious about whether Dan Warthen and Howard Johnson will return. Oberkfell too, I guess. Don't remember where I heard it, but I did hear that both HoJo and Warthen will be back.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 09 2008 09:42 AM

I hope they let Jerry name his own staff. You could in fact craft one entirely of Jerry's ex-teammates who were also ex- or future Mets: 75/76 Tigers: Tom Veryzer Mickey Lolich Ed Glynn Phil Mankowski Dave Roberts 80/81 Expos: Ellis Valentine Bill Almon Gary Carter Willie Montanez Mike Phillips Jeff Reardon John Milner 82 Padres: Garry Templeton Mario Ramirez Fun Fact: Manuel and Tony Bernazard were teammates on the 1980 Expos. Not to mention Terry Francona and Ken Macha and future Mets AAA manager John Tamargo.

Farmer Ted Oct 09 2008 10:34 AM

If Guy Conti leaves, I leave. Well, maybe not. I'd at least be a little bummed.

AG/DC Oct 09 2008 10:45 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 80/81 Expos: Ellis Valentine Bill Almon Gary Carter Willie Montanez Mike Phillips Jeff Reardon John Milner This would be the best coaching staff ever. A recovering cokehead, a former number-one overall draft choice-turned-futility infielder, a comical ego, a jumbo hot dog with mustard, a midnight massacre survivor, a former All Star struggling with depression, and a dead guy.

HahnSolo Oct 09 2008 01:57 PM

A dead Milner would have been a better lefty option off the bench than Marlon Anderson.